Myths, Answers, and Life

Myths:

- "We need money to live";

- "The economy is an indicator of the nation's/country's health";

- "Those people are homeless, and their desperation often makes them dangerous. Don't give them too much, or they will try to take more";

- "Members of our families are people we can always trust, no matter what";

- "Organizing, and demanding fair wages/and planting a forest/and passing new legislation/and abolishing police systems of power abuse/and abolishing private and/or public prisons, etc., is unrealistic. Let's focus on something we can -actually- do";

- "The world is doomed anyway. What's the point?"

- "The only person who you can truly rely on is yourself"

Every one of the sentences I typed up above has some degree of truth to it, but the overall message is the same: defeatism, nihilism, and giving up on a cause, an approach to improving life, existence, and the world that is inherently more ethical than what we currently experience and empower in our average, everyday lives.

Things not to do when you make a film about people on the Autism Spectrum:

This is a list, and a response beyond a list, to recent news and statements made by Sia, a singer-songwriter out of Australia, and her condemned film, 'Music', about people on the Autism Spectrum.

Things not to do when you make a film about people on the Autism Spectrum:

1) Exclude them (Autistic people) from having input into the narrative and subject matter of the film;

2) Ignore the non-autistic person playing a supposedly-autistic character when they raise doubts about their portrayal of autistic people being authentic, and express concern that they feel like the portrayal mocks us (which it sure has been recieved as doing!)

3) Release the film, in spite of the poor decision making and irresponsible behavior referenced above in 1) and 2);

4) Ignore storng initial signs of backlash from people on the autism spectrum and our allies, calling out your film for its innacccuracies, it's stereotype-feeding narrative and character protrayals, and especially for a scene in which a physical action is taken against an Autisitc character and is referred to as 'crushing them with love' that many people on the spectrum acknowledge could be genuinely dangerous;

5) Double down on your commitment to the film after backlash (rightfully) does not let up;

6) Repsond with anger and irritation at Autisitc people calling you out on Twitter when they learn you didn't really try to work with an Autistic actress in the autistic character's role, and didn't want to try, so you had that role re-cast for a neurotypical person

7) Tweet any of the following in response to Autisitic people becoming more and more frustrated and outraged at how poorly you've portrayed us, and how worse you have been at responding humanely to us:

7a: “Fucking bullshit. You have no fucking idea because you weren’t there and haven’t see the movie.”*

7b: “I cast thirteen neurotypical people, three trans folk, and not as fucking prostitutes or drug addicts but as doctors, nurses and singers. Fucking sad nobody’s even seen the dang movie. My heart has always been in the right place.”*

7c: “Grrrrrrrrr. Fuckity fuck why don’t you watch my film before you judge it? FURY.”* (Andy's note: yes, that's a quote from a tweet. If you aren't sure you believe me, see the links at the bottom of this post. Plenty of citations are out there)

8) Reveal that Autism $peaks helped you make the movie and supported you (no wonder its impact on us has been a train wreck and you weren't willing to even hear us out about how its portrayal of us is stereotypical, harmful, and even encourages physically dangerous behavior and action under the guise of 'helping' us...it's not like that's an organization that has advocated for us to be euthanized under the rhetoric of a 'cure' or anything and that partnered with Google's human genome project to see the happen...right...? Oh wait, yes, actually, that is exactly what's going on here, and you're adding fuel to the hellfire)

9) Go into rehab after feeling suicidal, and, as of the last 24-or-so-hours apparently, share with news stations that you felt suicidal because of Autistic people calling you out on what you have done with your film that has willfully, maliciously, and deceptively misrepresented, demonized, degraded, and normalized harmful and potentially physically dangerous behavior towards, us.

...Do you have any idea how many Autistic people die at their own hands? In any capacity? Do you understand why?

If so, why do you portray us as the villains who caused you to feel suicidal, rather than acknowledge that your behavior and your film are unethical and clearly did actual, real harm, adding to stereotypes that contribute to our suicides, and our murders via filicide on top of that...?

There's a reason why March 1st is recognized by some diability rights advocate and activist circles as the "Disabiltiy Day of Mourning", where we read off the list of those whose parents or caregivers have killed us. There's a reason why our community is hurting. There's are many reasons why we called your film, and you, out...the biggest being that you have joined a club of celebrities and politicians and wealthy people, who are not Autistic and who are not Neurodivergent, who have mocked and taunted, dismissed and ignored, and with films and actions like your own, exploited us, for your own profit. A club of people who double down on being unethical and harmful towards us, and who them play the role of victim. Of course you found a strong backlash; you lashed out at us first while pretending to represent us with your film' which you regard as 'art'. But it isn't art; it's nonautistic misunderstandings and misportrayals of supposedly autistic people. It is made to reinforce a cultural narrative that justifies seeing us as 'less than'.

And, as if that weren't enough, you 'feel suicidal' because a demographic and community of people who often do die from suicide, and also from being murdered by others, called you out and shamed you for legitimately shameful behavior...? For the first time in my life, in spite of my past suicidal thoughts, I do not have empathy for you, as someone who was suicidal, that is reasonable and sensible to entertain. Never before have I withheld feeling for someone who has struggled with those terrible thoughts...not one single time.

But now, because of your unethical behavior, I am aware that some people can feel suicidal...and still actually, genuinely, and fully not deserve my compassion. After all, by your account, I'm an example of the type of person you consider responsible fro your suicidal thoughts and feelings...even though, in reality, they're the consequences of your -own- actions, and your -own- behavior against that same demographic of people -- Autistic people -- whose behavior is often the reason we are pathologized, discriminated against, bullied, abused, and even killed.

Your suicidal thoughts do not justify or excuse you willfully contributing to the factors that often push us over the edge of the precipice that would kill us, and failing to apologize for your extra push when we explain what you have done to you.

If you absolutely must turn to blame someone for the way that your film is apparently such a caricature of who we, as Autistic people, are, well...frankly, you did work with Autism $peaks. Maybe scrutinize them? Maybe don't take their word sincerely next time...? They are known for damaging representations of us that are similar to your own work -- something that a great many Autistic people speak, write, blog, tweet, post, and continue to be vocal about well after over a decade's time. Had you consulted us, at all, that would have been apparent (assuming you would have listened, which I hope you would have...but I wouldn't hold my breath, either...).

Heck, Autism $peaks did contribute to the film even after you wouldn't let an actually-Autistic person play the role of your supposedly autistic lead because you found accommodating that autistic actress to be too hard, after all. At least, by pointing out how their views maybe impacted your work, then you'd be pointing at a likely underlying cause of why you've gone through feeling suicidal -- a cause for why we've been so ticked off by how you portrayed, and betrayed, us.

But don't blame us. We didn't contribute to your film; we didn't get that option. You, instead, made it, directed it, made "executive decisions" for it, and have referred to it yourself as 'Sia's [Your] love letter to caregivers and the autism (notably not 'autistic') community'.

This mess is of your own making, and you are responsible for the damage you have done - to us and to your own claims of trustworthiness and ethos. That we have to bear the consequences of your actions - of how you've mocked us - and call you out on what you've done wrong is not justifiable. It's not excusable. It's not ethical.

And you've brought it all back up after nearly a year, by talking about your suicidality...which you need not be silent about...but what of our decades of the same, thanks most notably to people like you?

Don't make works about us, without us.

Quit dehumanizing and stereotyping us.

Don't prematurely mourn for us, especially while we live.

Quit. Killing. Us.

- an Autistic person who has grappled with suicidal thoughts, feelings, and hardships for years throughout multiple parts of his life, and who is, thank all good things, 'Not Dead Yet'

---

* Source for these quoted tweets under list item "7)" (some of these are also referenced in some of the articles that follow further down. Apparently, Sia's reaction saw plenty of tweets made on Twitter before she took them don): 

https://www.onstageblog.com/onscreenblog-features/2020/11/21/sias-film-music-excludes-autistic-artists-while-capitalizing-on-their-essence

Some other links for reference and further learning/context, with quotes I've picked out, in case people really need more:

https://www.usatoday.com/story/entertainment/movies/2021/02/15/sia-new-movie-music-angers-autism-community/6735331002/  

1) "In the film (now streaming), Music (played by Maddie Ziegler) is a young autistic woman who falls under the care of her half-sister Zu (Kate Hudson) after her grandmother dies (Mary Kay Place). Zu learns all about Music's daily routine with the help of Music's neighbor Ebo (Leslie Odom Jr.) – and the movie becomes more problematic from there, according to advocates."

2) "I don't even know where to start," Camille Proctor, executive director and founder of The Color of Autism Foundation, told USA TODAY. [...] I feel like (Ziegler) was doing parody." 

3) "The movie depicts Music being restrained as a means to calm her down – something the community has condemned. 

"The autistic community has been fighting for decades to end the use of restraints that traumatize and kill," said Zoe Gross, director of advocacy at the Autistic Self Advocacy Network, in a statement. "Had the filmmakers chosen to meaningfully involve autistic people from the beginning, we could have told them how catastrophically irresponsible it is to encourage viewers to use the kind of deadly restraints that killed Max Benson, Eric Parsa, and many other members of our community."

https://nypost.com/2021/02/17/more-than-55000-critics-cancel-sias-music-amid-backlash/ 

1) "The National Autism Association has characterized Ziegler’s performance and Sia’s direction as “dangerous and abusive,” particularly for the scenes involving restraint and seclusion of Ziegler’s character — forms of control that are known to exacerbate and upset those with autism." 

 2) "The backlash finally prompted Sia to tweet “sorry” for listening to “the wrong people” during the making of the film — an 180-degree turn from her original defense, which saw the debut filmmaker lash out at one actor with autism who auditioned for the role, suggesting “maybe you’re just a bad actor” for not landing the part. She has also since pledged to add a disclaimer to her movie, although reports have been mixed as to whether the warning is yet in place.

[...] 

However, the disclaimer was nowhere to be seen by the time the Autisticats, an autism advocacy group on social media, delivered their thorough take on the film last weekend, paying close attention to Ziegler’s physical portrayal of autism.

“There is absolutely nothing wrong with the ways autistic people move, or the ways we make facial expressions,” they wrote, referencing Zielger’s exaggerated performance.

“I also want to emphasize that, while I mention Ziegler frequently in this post because she is the actress portraying the autistic character, this whole fiasco is not her fault. She was only 14 at the time that filming began,” the Autisticats said. “The blame lies with Sia and the other members of this project who did not stop this before it got out of hand.”" 

 https://junkee.com/sia-music-autistic-response/287963

1) "[...]beyond casting a non-autistic actor to play Music, the inclusion of dangerous physical restraint scenes in Music has also rightfully angered the neurodivergent community.

In one scene, Zu is taught how to hold down Music through prone restraint (face-down to the ground) when she has a meltdown in the park. The issue? Well, prone restraint has led to a number of deaths in children at youth homes and schools in real-life, and is a frowned upon practice in the community. So much so that an International Coalition Against Restraint and Seclusion has even been formed in response to this continued “barbaric” use of restraint on autistic people."

2) When the first trailer for Music was released back in November, the public were quick to question why Sia had cast Maddie Ziegler, a non-autistic actor, to play the title role.

To justify her reasons, despite Ziegler being basically written for the dancing role, Sia said that she had tried to work with an autistic actor, but that they found the project too overwhelming as the role required someone with high-level dance skills.

[...] 

But when autistic actors shared that they would’ve gladly taken the lead role “at short notice” if the actor chosen couldn’t “handle the stress”, Sia got defensive 

[...] 

“Fucking bullshit. You have no fucking idea because you weren’t there and haven’t seen the movie, ” she snapped. “Maybe you’re just a bad actor.” 

Real Spirituality

Real spirituality demands both internal -and- external work, and shows us that our limited identities and perceptions of them - of self, of what we think is best for our self, the full extent of what we know, etc. - are ethically-and-morally-speaking not enough.

Real spirituality, I'll adamantly argue, demands self-scrutiny and the decency of holding one's self accountable...and goes so far as to realize that, when we do something unethical, it cannot be magically 'undone' or 'transcended' by our future work or development in some way, shape, or form.

Real spirituality doesn't have need for double standard-loaded beliefs to pseudo-explain-away those topics that we must sit with and be uncomfortable with in order to genuinely confront.

Real spirituality does -not- claim that everyone exists in their own little bubbles and that one's reality's problems are exclusively their own fault, nor does it claim that the good in your own reality or anyone's own reality comes solely from your work, or one's own work - and therefore, such a holistic spirituality doesn't fail to address reality, its interconnections, its interactions, and its mysteries.

Real spirituality addresses mysterious and hard-to-grasp facts, and questions, and topics, without trying to shove them all into easily-understood-and-quickly-comprehended 'nutshells' or 'conceptual boxes' - and acknowledges that a human mind cannot grasp everything (hence its finite form, and finite processing power)...and is still able to make -genuine- peace with the reality that not all things can be addressed in so finite a time for a finite being.

Real spirituality demands we walk a hard path, including and especially -now- because it is the right thing to do, and it will better our selves and others' selves...the likes of which, I'll personally argue, are not so separate and 'us vs. them' as our cultures and current social frameworks mislead us to look at each other as being.

Real spirituality doesn't lead to the mentality and broad, unrelenting presumption that, if your life is good, that you've earned it - and that if your life is bad, that you've earned it.

Real spirituality is realistic and acknowledges real complexity in reality. It is -not- dismissive, -not- divisive, and -not- the self-obsession that is reflected in such things as most new age versions of "The Law of Attraction" or models of reality as a "reflection" of one's inner self - both concepts that need to be picked apart, significant portions of which need to be decomposed, and ultimately returned to a more life-giving-and-enabling state.

Thoughts on Numbers, Letters, Counting, Communication, Language, and Art:

Today, I stumbled into a reoccurring question I keep finding crop up on my mind:

Why do people keep espousing that numbers have significance in-an-of their own 'selves' as if on a spiritual level...?  It's how something -interacts- with something else symbolic that gives it significance, that opens up the opportunity to realize a certain potential, and maintain a distinct meaning...

No, for example '7' is not innately synonymous with a strong, righteous, and sacred power.

Similarly, no, '4' doesn't innately symbolize balance and structure and orientation.  Rather, it's just been convenient to associate it (and rightfully so) with the number of directions we use on our maps for North, South, East, and West...which relate to both physical systems we came up with (how many sides of a sheet of rectangular paper are there that we can use to associate one with each direction we then give a name to...?  There are 4.  Same with corners...) and natural systems (as directions again go, it is convenient when one is well into the Northern Hemisphere to think of 'North' as 'cold' 'South' as 'warm' and 'East' and 'West' as similar in temperature...but probably as all go, each one leads to a different kind of terrain and place/places the further that one journeys).

And, while I find it endearing when agreed upon by others and sent to me as a message of intended compassion or uplifting spirit, no, '143' is not innately a message saying "I love you" or anything else of the sort, without people (or any entity that can interpret that number, made of three numeric characters) creating, sending, and interpreting the message and its carrying symbols.  It's the fact that someone who -uses- '143' to mean that as they send that message to me that uplifts my spirit, my soul, and my emotional being...not the numbers, or some innate meaning behind them (which they, again, honestly don't have).

No, just like 'j' doesn't -automatically- and -innately- represent the planet Jupiter, nor a particular person who happened to be named 'Jasper' by their parents, and so on...so, too, it is that individual characters in language, and the words, numbers, and/or other combined forms that they amalgamate into do -not- have any -inherent- meaning.

Why else, if you write a note to your pet fish and tape it on the non-wet-side of its fish bowl/preferably its fish tank (fish need room to swim and explore, too, you know...I bet they don't like being quarantined perpetually...at all...) does your fish not automatically understand what you mean, clear as day?  They understand other symbols, after all, as do birds; that's why examples of both types of creatures use color displays as symbolic communication when trying to attract a mate.  They're saying "I'm interested!  I'm open to this!"

Really, why else is there clearly misinterpretation, unless there isn't innately implied meaning...? Misinterpretations exist because words -can- and -do- mean multiple things -- and that is possible explicitly because they aren't innately imbued with meaning...but they don't have anything meaningful innately communicated by them.  They must be given form, and even more importantly, contextualized (ie. 'actualized') to bear meaning and for that meaning to be, then, agreed upon and communicated with ease and effectiveness.

And, finally, with that said, no the number of single digit numbers in our number system is not significant; on the contrary, it so often has been that number systems end up 'base five' or 'base ten' because - surprise, surprise! - we have five fingers on a hand...a total of ten on our two hands.

Yes, that's why we count in multiples of ten to get to the next decimal place in our current number system. That is literally the only reason...But, it's a good one.  Here's why:

It's very practical, and very, very convenient and speeds counting up in a sensible, usable way for those of us who didn't have access to paper or charcoal and a wonderfully perfectly flat writing surface, and needed to count five, ten, or multiples of five or ten, crops, barrels of wheat, coins of currency, containers, or supplies or other items of a similar type or the same type that we grouped together. And believe it or not, when you don't have access to a writing system to do that, even ancient life exchanges in basic economic trading situations between, say, indigenous villages, become notably more difficult.

Here's a practical, semi-basic example: A rather large 'village' or 'town' has many people sick in it back several centuries and maybe two or three additional millennia, ago...and I must trade you a lot of valuable wealth for the ingredients for the medicinal remedies that we know work to help relieve the ill of their illnesses...How do I, who am trading a lot of wealth for know that I am getting enough supplies for -all- of the sick adults, all twenty-three of them, so that I don't give you the wealth and end up short-handed...? I need to count the supplies out, somehow. They each need about ten mature, green (not yet red) leaves from this plant, while it still has the medicinal chemical in it before it uses it in the fall...and also each needs six recently plucked berries berries from that plant, as well as five from that plant - though those second type of berries need to be ground up after being dried, so they're notably different. Then, we need a water bowl/jug/container for each person's medicine-in-the-making, to mix all of these into a liquid and consumable form that can be swallowed...etc, etc...

"23 adults" x "10 leaves, that are mature and roughly the same size" = 230 individual leaves...? Suddenly, this isn't so simple without numbers...at all. It's time-consuming, and you, having faith in your counting, want to trade for the wealth here and go on with your day...but I NEED to make sure I have everything, and goodness forbid I lose count...

But, that's a -LOT- of individual leaves to lay out in a single pile...wait, if I have ten fingers, I can count one leaf for each finger on my two hands, and then bundle them or bag them up in an 'individual pile/bag' for use by a single person. Then, I just do that 22 more times...and once the leaves are all accounted for, the same method is used for the recently picked berries, and the dried and crushed ones, too.

...So, the numbers, and the system (or really, systems...remember, there are base five counting systems out there that don't have a single-digit '6' or '7' or '8' or '9'...or maybe even '0' or '5' depending on which one ends up excluded, and what numeric concepts existed at the time...the idea of a symbol for '0' is a lot less than 10,000 years old!) that they are woven into, are indeed practical - not borne out of religious traditions, but rather out of our own flesh and our own daily, but survival-based, needs.

Heck, if our early memories could have easily handled it millennia and millennia ago, whenever we began creating symbols for counting, we could have also made twenty single-digit numbers - the number for the total of our fingers, and toes...or, the total number of our phalanges (finger-or-toe-type-appendages). But as present-day indigenous people have taught scientists and shown those who researched them and observed them, adjusting a not-young mind to counting in a number system with base 5, or 10, or 20 single digits with their own individual systems is...unless I've read incorrectly over the results of such research, pretty darn difficult.

Brain plasticity, or maybe just what one is and is not used to and how that struggles to change over time earlier on in life rather than later on, can interfere with our ability to grasp these systems.

Reread that last couple of paragraphs again, now, and tell me....does '7' still have an innately sacred meaning to you? If so, why? And, what are you stuck on, not understanding, refusing to see or acknowledge, or otherwise confused over about numbers...?  Or, has a context in which the symbol, or or seven different items or occurrences of importance, impacted and created that significance for you, through experience...?  Numbers themselves aren't 'vibrations,' nor do they arbitrarily represent them or hold inherent power or meaning; they don't correspond with 'this' or 'that' saint/angel/god/goddess/figure of note/etc...and without some shared, and interpreted, context to provide that for them, they literally are scribbles that merely hold a physical appearance - much like a painting that is of abstract lines, abstract blobs or shapes of color, without actual reference to reality.

It's the beholders, and the makers, of messages who hold and who craft the meaning of the artwork in cases such as those...and the same is true of all symbolic language, including numbers.

A Plea for these Trying Times

Here is the issue: 

We have experienced some 'notable shudders' down the spine of many a human society right now - in more ways than one.  These shuddering movements that has rippled down the spine of many of our societies point to a number of problems in the body of the human species, the human reality...all of which need addressed, and sooner rather than later.

It is on that subject - the sudden shivers coursing throughout the human awareness and physique more notably than they have in my lifetime (short though it has been so far), shivers that tell of hunger, illness, and a lack of well-being for Humanity - that I feel a need to type this.

 

In the midst of the spread of a deadly virus that is taking many lives so far, and looks to be on track to take many more...

In the midst of numerous conflicting perceptions of reality, alongside a dangerously swelling perpetuation and overabundance of 'fake news,' 'propaganda,' and stories designed to manipulate people into believing or not believing - ultimately with division as the goal...

In the midst of 'leaders' (people in positions of often ill-gotten and ill-hoarded power) in economic and political systems trying to accumulate ends such as more wealth, and more control, through yet more draconian means...

In the midst of a time that has seen challenge after mounting challenge impeding upon and tarnishing the health of environments - the nature, the elements, the waters, the skies, the soils, the forests, the sands, the ice shelves, the clouds, the minerals, and more - that bore us and sustained us in physical life and form...

In a time of mass inner confusion, and of lackluster, self-focused, individualistic, and ego-driven 'solutions to these problems,' that leave them ultimately unsolved, and that teach us not much more than to numb ourselves to them...

...I am going to ask of you to be contrary to what you perceive as common sense that, when examined closely, centers on your own benefit at the expense of others...and re-examine your notion of what, and who, you consider yourself to be.

Chances are that the benefits you're experiencing by living as your 'self' currently are short-lived, and will dry up...and that they are the result of, whether you are aware of it or not, taking from others in some way. What, after all, is this not the case with in modernity...? What, after all, do we gain without great cost in the modern world, given the modern lifestyle and our modern, individualistic values?

- It isn't the case with our clothing;

- It isn't the case with our buildings - our schools, offices, storage facilities, workshops, or homes;

- It isn't the case with our food, or our waters;

- It isn't the case with what we deem our property, of any kind;

And - tragically and embarrassingly - it is too often even a struggle to secede our focus on benefiting ourselves first and upmost before any and all other things...with our relationships.

Be they acquaintanceships, friendships, family relations, romances, relations we have with our most dearly loved partners, relationships with our elders and ancestors, and even the relationships we have with our children...and, all of those who will inherit the Earth, the stars, and the learning that we have been fortunate enough to be able to pass on...all of those alongside and after them...

Be the relationships whatever kind that they may be, they, too, are too often motivated almost exclusively by a focus on our individual self.

So, given that this is not working - clearly, and has not been, ever, at all, really - I would plea that we all take a different course of action...of living, of being, of interacting, of influencing, of aiding and supporting...and of opposing (where and when and if it becomes, sadly, necessary).

Here is my plea:

Let's please, please expand our concept of what each of us sees as integrally related to and tied to our 'self.' We've been insistent on the claim and belief that we are 'individual people' - and leaving it at that - for a time too long in circumstances that demand we act with much more compassion, much more empathy, much more resilience, and much more vulnerability -- as a strength -- than that.

Because, whether it's giving more ventilation systems or masks to doctors, nurses, patients, and the like in hospitals and sick bed sites,

Or working to create a vaccine and/or other genuinely benevolent medicine that helps curtail those organisms that would bring about explosively dangerous epidemics, or revolutionizing the technologies and available resources to better the health of living beings in general,

Or planting the forests, cleaning the waters, and clearing the lands of toxic sludge and long-unused asphalt and tar,

Or bringing people together in genuinely close communities of friends, families, and loved ones of all ages and walks of life, to generate further solutions to problems, and create happier memories than have been experienced before (yes, that can be done),

Or change the systems and structures that ensnare, chain, and numb people so that they no longer impede upon the descendants of those who made them with less knowledge of their dangers than those enshackled within them...and repurpose them, their good qualities, and their empowering elements to better ourselves, each other, the world, and life itself...

...Regardless of what along these lines we focus on as individuals, we cannot enact such immense change on our own. Empathy and understanding of how to address the various needs each and every one of us - and others beyond human, too - has to take immense priority here. That, in the long term, is a clear matter of life -or- death, and the decision starts at an individual level to either broaden our awareness of what we care about as our very own self...or reject as if completely and utterly separate from, and cut off from, who we are.

If we successfully move into a world in which people can take a look at anything else, and say and feel, with sincerity and without doubt "This is me" of something that is not their own body, then we may yet stand more than such a small, meager chance at overcoming some of the greatest challenges we have seen and are currently seeing - and may even stand a chance at not repeating the mistakes that our least-wise of ancestors, and 'leaders,' have made into the problems we face today.

I plea and pray, and hope and beg, that we will move beyond our selves, as we currently know ourselves - and into a better world, as better people, united in better ways...as Humanity should be.